M8.2 Hi-ISO: Hey! It's not so bad!

[noimmunity]

i had a whiskey or 2 in me when i read this post

HIGH ISO, for sure!

 

[tmfabian]

Mainly smearing effect i guess. Even 640 iso is noisy with my M8.2, at least with my raw converters. More so than with my 5D1 at 800 iso i'm afraid. I don't use LR3 though.

there's not much you can gather from my crop sadly...i only posted the file as an attempt to show some banding in a file severely underexposed file...sharpness wasn't really an issue for that...like i said...a whiskey or 2...possibly 3....

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

you should always listen to gabriel...no lies...the man knows what he's talking about.

Grazie. ::blush:: Well, there's lots I don't know. But at least I try not to preach about it as if it were gospel.

 

[tmfabian]

Mainly smearing effect i guess. Even 640 iso is noisy with my M8.2, at least with my raw converters. More so than with my 5D1 at 800 iso i'm afraid. I don't use LR3 though.

also...noise ain't the only game in town. I own a nikon d3x, a 5d mk II, 1ds MK III, and a sony alpha 900, as well as the m8. I still use the m8 frequently...even though it is 'technically obsolete', the lil bugger still produces insanely sharp images...mainly due to the lack of filters over the sensor. A camera is a camera...how well you use it is up to you.

 

[LCT]

Otherwise i would not keep my M8.2 of course but facts are facts, compared to later competitors it is a noisy camera. Perhaps the next firmware update will improve this i don't know. Touch wood but i don't hold my breath.

 

[tmfabian]

Otherwise i would not keep my M8.2 of course but facts are facts, compared to later competitors it is a noisy camera. Perhaps the next firmware update will improve this i don't know. Touch wood but i don't hold my breath.

firmware ain't gonna do squat. The m8 is an old camera with old technology. The fact is, it's not nearly as awful as people think it is. Can it compare to the d3 or 5d at high ISO...no, not really, but is it unacceptable? heck no...it's perfectly acceptable...and with newer technology in the software world, older cameras are becoming more and more acceptable in the high ISO world.

 

[jarski]

when referring to noise reduction in LR, are you meaning ACR ? or is there also options for this after raw has been opened to LR ?

ACR 6 and newer brought improved noise reduction, avail for Photoshoppers like me 😛

 

[riceman]

Hi,

I don't see a big difference between the Canons and Nikons and a M8 file with a good post processing in Lightroom 3 and Photoshop.


100% crop
Leica M8, Summilux 50mm @ 1.4
ISO 2500,

Only noise reduction in Lightroom 3,
resized in CS 5, sharpend via Highpass and soft light.

 

[noimmunity]

That crop from riceman looks quite good.

I just realized that some people (Tom, is that you?) are shooting ISO2500 with an exp comp of -2 stops. Am I reading that right? Why wouldn't one just use ISO640 in that case? I've shot the same frame at home at +1 and at -2 (both ISO2500) and there's no question that the +1 is far superior by virtue of avoiding banding and having reduced noise (the price for which are blown highlights). What am I missing here, folks?

Edit/Addition: I've done some basic playing with the trial version of LR3.4 and my preliminary impression is that the NR is slightly better than C1P6. But these results are anything if conclusive, and don't resolve the banding problem when that occurs.

 

[user237428934]

Hi,

I don't see a big difference between the Canons and Nikons and a M8 file with a good post processing in Lightroom 3 and Photoshop.


100% crop
Leica M8, Summilux 50mm @ 1.4
ISO 2500,

Only noise reduction in Lightroom 3,
resized in CS 5, sharpend via Highpass and soft light.

Sorry but at daylight high iso from the crappiest camera does not look so bad. This is not really good example. My old Canon 40D was much better in high Iso than my M8, not to speak of more modern DSLRs.

Take the camera out in the evening and see yourself. Especially in the dark grey to black areas I easily have this banding effects. The only way to get rid of this is to make dark areas almost black (e.g. with the levels tool).

At night in mixed light situations when exposure is not so easy the M8 is a diva.

 

[Rob-F]

Take the camera out in the evening and see yourself. Especially in the dark grey to black areas I easily have this banding effects. The only way to get rid of this is to make dark areas almost black (e.g. with the levels tool).

At night in mixed light situations when exposure is not so easy the M8 is a diva.

Yes, well, I did exactly that--shot towards the end of magic hour--and now I see it; not anything I recognize as banding, but very pronounced color noise at ISO 2500. At 1250 it looks much more acceptable, like smooth film grain. At 2500 I slid the Aperture sliders this way and that, to no avail. I'd say it's necessary to limit to 1250 for barely acceptable noise.

So I will have to amend my excessively optimistic opening statement that the noise is OK at 2500. It can be OK, if the picture is basically high-key. But for shots that contain shadow areas, forget it!

 

[user237428934]

ISO 2500, A 2.8 lens wide open, 1/30s. The light comes from a very shiny firework rocket that I used as my flash. Had to make it more black but here it does not look so bad. One of the few good examples at 2500 I have.

 

[umcelinho]

Not an M8.2, but I've just taken some sample shots with a friend's M9, I was really eager to see the high iso performance on real life situations... 1250 is ok, 2500 acceptable. the R-D1 1600 files have a similar noise / color noise than the M9's 2500, looking at shadows.

 

[frieri]

M8 + Sonnar 1.5/50 + IR filter
ISO 2500, 1/20sec., f/16